Re: [tosca] Groups - Issue_TOSCAXXX_Substitution_mappings_grammar_support.docx uploaded

["Matt Rutkowski" <mrutkows@us.ibm.com>]

Hi Luc,

We just got the use cases described
and revisited some of the reasons subst. mappings were created and some
of the drawbacks.  Primarily we need to understand the use case ("selection"
as I call it) and recoginize that the major problem we acknowledged was
that Node Types with custom Interfaces (other operations) when used in
subst. mappings have no way of mapping these extra operations (which needs
to be considered, especially if they are part of some special state change).
 In the case of VNF nodes, they indeed have different names for similar
states (and we may ask that they map to ours), but they have additional
states as well that we may need to figure out how to acknowledge and communicate
to the ORch. where they are relative to the our standard operational states.
 Long time ago, we discussed additional grammar to "inject"
new states on new interfaces (BEFORE/AFTER a known state).

We will keep discussing next week, but
Thinh says it is imperative we have a working solution for the ETSI meetings
in 2 weeks (we can have a short term solution or workaround they can document
in the NFV profile) while also seeking a longer term solution for v1.2
or v1.3.  We just would like to know what direction any changes might
take (and where in the grammar) to better make short term decisions.

Kind regards,
Matt 




From:      
 "BOUTIER, LUC"
<luc.boutier@fastconnect.fr>
To:      
 Thinh Nguyenphu <thinh.nguyenphu@nokia.com>,
Matt Rutkowski/Austin/IBM@IBMUS
Cc:      
 "tosca@lists.oasis-open.org"
<tosca@lists.oasis-open.org>
Date:      
 03/08/2017 08:38 AM
Subject:    
   Re: [tosca]
Groups - Issue_TOSCAXXX_Substitution_mappings_grammar_support.docx uploaded
Sent by:    
   <tosca@lists.oasis-open.org>

---

Hi Thinh, Matt,
 
I unfortunately was not here on Tuesday
and I don’t really understand what this proposal is trying to achieve,
it sounds like it is not substitution anymore but a new way to define a
node type. How are the interfaces of the substitution playing vs workflows
and how with the nodes within the topology?
 
I’m not sure to understand what scenario
this proposal is solving that classical TOSCA cannot solve. Is there a
detailed use-case? Why not having a node template in the topology that
defines the interface and actual capability to be exposed?
Is this going to be discussed again in
next Tuesday call ?
 
Luc
 
From: <tosca@lists.oasis-open.org>
on behalf of Thinh Nguyenphu <thinh.nguyenphu@nokia.com>
Date: Wednesday, 8 March 2017 at 15:18
To: "tosca@lists.oasis-open.org" <tosca@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject: [tosca] Groups - Issue_TOSCAXXX_Substitution_mappings_grammar_support.docx
uploaded
 
Submitter's message
Hello Simple-YAML team,

This document was presented yesterday YAML call, substitution_mappings
grammar enhancement proposal. Thinh 
-- Thinh Nguyenphu

Document Name: Issue_TOSCAXXX_Substitution_mappings_grammar_support.docx

---

No description provided.
Download Latest Revision
Public Download Link

---

Submitter: Thinh Nguyenphu
Group: OASIS Topology and Orchestration Specification for Cloud Applications (TOSCA) TC
Folder: Working Documents
Date submitted: 2017-03-08 06:17:55